Beyond Action Research

Abstract

In this article we show how the communicative methodology of research (CMR) makes it possible to implement evidence-based policies to improve people's lives. Drawing on theories and methods developed under other paradigms and based on dialogue, the CMR is now a solid body of theory that researchers can put into practice. As researchers engage in egalitarian dialogic interactions with the members of society who are engaged in the research with them, they construct knowledge together. The researchers contribute empirical knowledge to the dialogue, and the social actors contribute by describing, and reflecting on, their life experiences. The final results are oriented toward transforming society through actions based on this jointly developed evidence.

Reconciling rigour and impact by collaborative research design: study of teacher agency

“…CCM proceeds as an iterative process in which the researcher is responsible for presenting the theoretical propositions from the literature in a way that allows questioning by other participants and taking on board diverse voices in an 'egalitarian dialogue' (Gómez, Puigvert, and Flecha 2011), which then informs refinement by the researcher. Egalitarian dialogue is the main way of incorporating all voices in the research process in which there are no hierarchical differences between 'experts' and 'non-experts', although there is a clear distinction between their roles specified in the principles and procedures of collaboration (Gómez, Carmen, and Capllonch 2013). The theoretical contribution of the researchers is seen as their ethical responsibility to the social actors who have no time to engage in research.…”

“…However, they do not consider their knowledge to be superior, and they cannot claim scientific rigour on their own. A key aspect of CCM is that decisions are made based on the validity of arguments each person provides, not on power claims (Gómez, Carmen, and Capllonch 2013). The twelve-member committee included six researchers/teacher educators from the University of Edinburgh with expertise in educational exclusion, disadvantage and restorative practices in schools, teacher preparation for inclusive education, teacher leadership and professional inquiry, and six practitioners and policy makers (see Table 1).…”

“…This approach requires the researcher to adopt a reflexive stance to the literature-based knowledge claims, and to respond to the feedback that shapes the research process and tools development as it proceeds, which is different from simply informing the participants about the pre-designed method. The use of CCM allowed for people being studied to participate in defining the strategy for data collection and analysis (Gómez, Carmen, and Capllonch 2013). The first meeting of the Advisory Committee was entirely dedicated to questioning the theoretical perspective of agency initially proposed by the researcher.…”

“…We believe the research and tools design benefited greatly from the different knowledge and skills various participants brought to the project. Convergence of scientific knowledge and insights from participants' everyday experiences characteristic of CCM dialogue (Gómez, Carmen, and Capllonch. 2013) was corroborated in our study, and perhaps even greater than in the usual uses of CCM with the marginalised groups, since practitioners brought in expertise that was complementary to that of researchers, rather than 'non-expert' experiences, for example when they suggested that building capacity for transformative agency might be more about the ways of engaging with given workplace structures and cultures, than about teaching teachers what they need to do.…”

“…The distinction between the collaborative approach and communicative methodology (Gómez, Puigvert, and Flecha 2011) employed in this study and other similar approaches such as action research (Foreman-Peck and Murray 2008;Kemmis 2006), is that in our study conventional researchers and practitioners worked collaboratively to explore new ways of studying 'what really matters' to education practitioners and communities while employing rigorous scientific methodologies to build and refine theoretical knowledge. While action researchers focus on knowledge obtained through action and intervention related to pragmatic questions, more than on conceptual bases of the research, the communicative methodology assigns equal importance to the theoretical bases and building scientific knowledge over time (Gómez, Carmen, and Capllonch 2013). This approach recognises that practitioners often value the rigour and robustness of evidence provided by research although they might not have had the methodological training of the researchers (Baumfield et al 2009;Little 2012).…”